Comments for EDM Blogsite

Comment on Your Vote Counts! ASAE Releases Data Standards Draft by Wes Trochlil

Wes Trochlil — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:16:24 +0000

Test comment.

Comment on My Greatest Pet Peeve by Wes Trochlil

Wes Trochlil — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:25:33 +0000

I think we’re all in agreement here. It’s a rather nonsensical question. Kind of like asking your doctor “Well, how does my health compare to my neighbor’s?”

Comment on My Greatest Pet Peeve by Scott Briscoe

Scott Briscoe — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:58:20 +0000

I think this is the wrong debate. Member retention should be a secondary stat to monitor at best. If less and less of your org’s income comes from dues, and you shed a few mailbox members, who cares? What matters is how many people who previously were not engaged with your organization are now — and how many people who were engaged no longer do (and why).

I flesh the idea out better in a previous post of mine on Acronym.

Comment on My Greatest Pet Peeve by Scott Oser

Scott Oser — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:57:55 +0000

Wes,

I completely agree with you. Over time I have worked with a number of organizations who insist I work with ASAE to get them benchmarking information on retention rates or recruitment response rates or a myriad of other stats that are kept and available. I always suggest that benchmarking against “industry standards” really does not tell them much. What they really need to be concerned about is figuring out ways to do better than they are today. In figuring out how to do that they need to truly understand their members, their industry, etc. and the potential challenges that may limit their ability or inability to retain their members.

I do get looked at kind of sidewise some times when I say this as I think some BOD members and even association staff think it is a cop out when I say the key to good performance in retention is to always try to do better than you have done in the past.

Comment on My Greatest Pet Peeve by Wes Trochlil

Wes Trochlil — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:56:02 +0000

I think their retention rates should be evaluated within the context of their own situation and their history. For example, at the National Association of College and University Business Officers, their retention among four-year colleges is nearly 100%. Obviously you can’t do much better than that (in that category) so if growth is necessary (it may not be) then they’ll have to look at other categories (or create new ones).

Also, the association’s mission needs to be taken into account. If the market we serve is served by dozens of other associations, then retention will likely be lower, but we also have to consider whether or not we should be trying to serve that whole market, if there are so many others providing similar services.

Comment on My Greatest Pet Peeve by David M. Patt, CAE

David M. Patt, CAE — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:34:54 +0000

Good point, Wes, but we’re all trained to look at “benchmarks” (I hate that word). How do you think associations can evaluate their retention rates?

Comment on Why is Google so easy and my database so hard? by Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:51:02 +0000

One reason I can think of is the architecture of the programs — most database frontends are built around the process of ENTERING information, whereas the Google frontend is built around the process of FINDING information. Databases would be better served with a search appliance that works more like Google.

Comment on Seeking input on a research study by Wes Trochlil

Wes Trochlil — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:12:09 +0000

David, in my experience (and among my clients), associations from three staff to 700+ may have an off-the-shelf association management system. Size is generally NOT the determining factor; rather it’s what I would call a management “sophistication level.” That is, the management understands the need for an AMS.

Comment on Seeking input on a research study by David M. Patt, CAE

David M. Patt, CAE — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:09:58 +0000

What size associations generally have an AMS?

Comment on The Financial Crisis and Your Database by Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:07:22 +0000

Wes, I will disagree with you a little bit as to the real reason that the scenario you describe happens time and time again in associations (and probably lots of other kinds of organizations).

The EXCUSE is, “I don’t trust the data in the database.”

The REAL REASON is, “I didn’t create this database, I didn’t pick this database, I don’t ‘own’ this database, I don’t like the way this database works, and the hell with this database.”

This is why in so many organizations you find various departments scuttling off to create their own systems (sometimes surreptitiously). When confronted, they claim that they had no choice because they “don’t trust the data in the database” or something similar.

Assuming that the association has done its job and implemented a system that does what it really is supposed to do … and assuming that the association provides the real training and support that people need to be able to effectively do their jobs … there are still some individuals who will fight tooth and nail (and create all sorts of excuses) to do things THEIR way with the system THEY want.

At this point, it becomes the responsibility of senior staff to recognize what is really going on, and make this a management issue, not just a training issue.